On literal meaning of Bhagavata

[spiritualbhakti]

Transcribed darshan of Sri Haridas Shastri

10.3.2001
Q: Is there any sense that some of the stories of the Bhagavatam are not literally, historically true, for example this story where Krsna jumps of the mountain which is 8 yojanas high, for there is no mountain which is 8 yojanas high, or Aristasura’s hump was touching the clouds. Is there any sense that sometimes there is poetic license that is taken like when Ugrasena gave crores and crores of servants more than the whole population of India today in charity. Are some of these incidents not to be taken literally?

A: There is no sense in the story, there is no use of taking the literal meaning and you cannot prove anything historically from these stories.
But the stories are just like the carriers to teach something. The author has an intention which he wants to convey to his audience, and for that he uses a means. What is his purpose?

There are six ways to understand that purpose of a sastra: 1) To analyse the introduction of the book, 2) the concluding statement, 3) what is repeated, 4) what has been established with logic, 5) what is the most extraordinary thing and 6) what is the fruit which has been stated in it. These six items have to be analysed to understand what is the sastra which he has written and what he wants to convey with it. Otherwise one will just misunderstand it, trying to take the literal meaning.

There are three ways the instructions are given in sastra: 1) One is like the vedas, which speak like the king, codana, that <You do this, you don’t do this!> They just speak like that, they don’t even explain why it should be done. 2) The other is the puranic style, where they speak like a friend. 3) And the third is the sahityic style (implied meaning). And sahitya means that you make up things in it, there may be exaggerations, there may be different ways of saying it.

So Bhagavata uses all three styles in it. It’s a literature, you probably know about aestetics, all this XXX kavita... XXX, these books explain it. So Bhagavatam uses these techniques, and therefore the literal meaning has no sense in it.

[spiritualbhakti]

Q: If that is the case, is there anything which is historically literal or accurate at all?

A: Yes, something. That’s what I’m saying because it has all three things, some are there and some are just exaggeration.

The first thing you should understand that Bhagavatam is not trying to tell you anything about history. If you try to prove any historical fact from it, then it is not the right book. It’s purpose is to establish Krsna as svayam bhagavan. And that’s what he (Vyasa) said right in the beginning: „satyam param dhimahi.“ And that satyam is a name of Krsna. And he wants to explain what bhagavan means. Bhagavan means one who is complete in sat-aisvarya, XXX quote XXX sometimes he has to show His aisvarya, His knowledge, His beauty etc., all these things have to be established. And to establish that he may use the sahityic style. That doesn’t mean that Krsna himself doesn’t exist, but how he (Vyasa) is establishing that fact, that may not be a literal explanation. So that has to be studied.

The main thing to be understood is that the purpose of Bhagavatam is to establish Krsna as svayam bhagavan and ultimately to establish uttama-bhakti or braja-bhakti. That is the real purpose of the author behind it. The other things are all secondary, there may be some historical things or they may not be.

[spiritualbhakti]

Q: If we undermine or deconstruct the historicity of the events in the Bhagavata purana, then what validity does that give to the so-called lila in Goloka Vrindavan?

A: It’s not that they don’t exist at all. It’s not that this mountain doesn’t exist at all, which is mentioned there. But if you’re going to measure it, you will not going to find it 8 yojanas high. It’s not that Govardhana is not there at all and everything is just concocted, Govardhana is there but the way it is described it may not be that way.

[spiritualbhakti]

Q: So then it is up to the individual to decide which parts of it are real and which parts are not?

A: No, it’s not up to the individual, that’s what you have to study from parampara. You have to actually know the style of sastra to understand it.

Why are you giving just these examples? If you take like this right from the beginning everything can be doubted. Just take in the very beginning the instance of Sukadeva Gosvami, it’s said that he was 16 years in the womb of his mother. Who is going to believe that he was 16 years in the womb? And then right after birth he started running away. How can somebody right after birth walk? And then also why he has to run only towards the forest? Because if he was brahman realized what was the need for him to run anywhere? It’s said that he was not distinguishing between men and women, but he knew the difference between home and forest? And how is it that he didn’t study one word, but when he heard the Bhagavatam verses he could understand them, and then he came back and studied?

The same is with Govardhana, because it says that Krsna lifted Govardhana. Now you try to imagine how he lifted it? Because to lift it, you have to go under it, and to go under it you have to lift it. So which happened first? And how did he keep it, after lifting it? And how is it, then when he lifted it, it didn’t fall down, not even the stones, have they been glued together or what? Especially when the rain was coming from the top. And there was so much rain coming, but there was no mud. How is that?

Ultimately the thing is that there is a style of sastra, which explains things. And that style has to be learned. These vedic literatures are not the way western people try to analyse and study them. But there is a whole system you have to understand first, and then you will know what these things imply basically.

[spiritualbhakti]

Q: Let’s say one learns that style, at what point does one identify something as being part of the sahitya style and at what point does one identify something as being something which actually took place historically. Isn’t that a personal decision?

A: If you know the shelley in which you have to study, then this doubt will not come. Because then you understand what is the shelley, which is being used, means the style or the process or the mechanics of explaining things or conveying his point. These things poets use all the time. You have to study that and have an experience of it.

It’s basically a language just as you have computer language. So you have to study the language, then you know what the terms may mean. If somebody just knows English, in English they may also have terms like that, e.g. <a program got aborted>, what does it mean <aborted>? Or there is a >mother board> ...

In Bhagavatam 10th canto there is a description or mention about the gopis, but in the whole book there is no mention about their birth or how they grew up or even their names. Not even one name of any gopi or their parents or husbands is mentioned. This is the sahityic style, because the author is not interested in giving their names or this or that. That you can figure out from some other place. But his thing is that he wanted to show the bhava, that is the prominent thing.

Rasa-lila is supposed to be the explanation of the gayatri-mantra. But now you try to figure out what rasa-lila has to do with gayatri? But this is the sahityic way of giving the meaning. But unless you know the shelley you will not understand it. But everybody can relish Bhagavatam in their own manner, historically there are some historical things in it, poetically you can see that it is a nice poetry, or those people who are interested in stories there are phantastic stories there. But what the author wants to speak, that he has explained in the very beginning. For him other things are secondary.

Like Krsna has chastised the Kaliya snake, all these descriptions cannot be explained historically. What about the cows? It’s said they had unlimited calves. Where did they exist? You have a few cows and such a big problem. And Nanda Maharaja had 9 lakh cows and also Vrsabhanu, everybody seemed to have 9 lakh cows, and they were always 9 lakhs, they never grew. This is all sahityic style, the number 9 signifies something.

[spiritualbhakti]

Q: What are the principle sahityic sastras, which discuss these poetic conventions, one should read to become familiar with this genre?

A: There are many. If you want to see in our Gaudiya-sampradaya then we have Alankara-kaustubha by Kavikarnapura, Kavya-kaustubha by Baladeva Vidyabhusana Swami and Bhakti-rasamrta-sesa by Jiva Gosvami. There are many books in our own sampradaya, Maharaja has printed and commented some of them. And if you want to see from the material side, then you have Sahitya-darpana, Kavya-prakasha, Dhvanyaloka, there are so many of them.

[gerard]

Because of the discussion going on about politics surrounding Sri Haridas Shastri, I came to this thread. I can't remember having seen this before. I like the question the person is asking about the high mountain Krishna and Balarama jump off.
According to Bhagavatam 10.52.12 the mountain is 11 (not 8) yojanas high. Sri Haridas Shastri who is called many times a "very learned person" gives a speech here about the "six ways of understanding shastra" and the "three ways of instructions" given in shastra. But actually he is not giving the person who asked the question an answer at all. All he talks about is

Bhagavatam is not trying to tell you anything about history.
...
It’s purpose is to establish Krsna as svayam bhagavan.
...
and ultimately to establish uttama-bhakti or braja-bhakti. That is the real purpose of the author behind it.
...

It’s not that this mountain doesn’t exist at all, which is mentioned there. But if you’re going to measure it, you will not going to find it 8 yojanas high.

Just some thoughts, I have no answers, I am not a learned swami. But maybe it has something to do with Indra. Indra is pouring incessantly rain on the mountain. The name of the mountain is Pravarshana, "beginning to rain". At a hundred miles high in the atmosphere these processes take place. Indra is the rain god.

Another thing might be the number 11. Many numbers are given in Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana. In this story Jarasandha has attacked Mathura 18 times. The number 18 appears everywhere in MBh and BP. But all HS can say is:

the number 9 signifies something.

I'm not very much interested in numerology and I never met a bhakta who was but the authors of the Mbh and the BP certainly were. Shouldn't we then also?

But HS just doesn't really want us to think at all of course:

Why are you giving just these examples? If you take like this right from the beginning everything can be doubted.

We are told:

Ultimately the thing is that there is a style of sastra, which explains things. And that style has to be learned. These vedic literatures are not the way western people try to analyse and study them. But there is a whole system you have to understand first, and then you will know what these things imply basically.

Of course we western people never understand anything, but at least I try to take the Bhagavatam seriously and do not come up with

for those people who are interested in stories there are phantastic stories there.

Very disappointing. No answers coming from that quarter. Maybe that is what's meant with jnana-sunya bhakti. There just is no jnana.

[spiritualbhakti]

Hi gerard,
Im not sure if you know this but the answers given by Maharajji are translated from hindi to english, maybe some things did not get translated all the way.